Category Archives: Advanced Placement (AP) classes

An article in the October 2 New York Times highlighted the success of an incentive program in which low income high schoolers are taking AP courses and earning college credit with high scores on the AP exams. The article emphasizes a rising concern that students and teachers are earning cash incentives as one part of a program that also provides teacher training, student tutoring, and lab equipment. I wonder how many people read it like I did — with a feeling of “YES, another story showing that ‘smart kids’ are not just a tiny predetermined group, but rather children from all economic, racial, and cultural backgrounds!”

One teacher from Massachusetts increased his AP class size by 8 times, and 70% of his new, enlarged student population received the necessary 3’s on the AP exam to receive college credit; 25% received a 5, the top score possible. One of the students who got a 5 reported that the after-school and Saturday classes and tutoring sessions helped a lot. When asked about the $100 incentive for getting at least a 3, he said,“There’s something cool about the money. It’s a great extra.”

The fact is, money or no money, the teachers in the program are believing in the kids and the kids, in turn, are believing in themselves. The statistics speak for themselves. A teacher in Arkansas had 9 kids in his AP math class 3 years ago, all the children of professionals. This year 65 kids from his math classes earned college credit with scores of 3 and higher. Organizers of the initiative say that over three years, the program has led to nearly 38,000 AP exams being taken in math, science and English, many of them by black and Hispanic students.

At the same time, an article recently published by the Association for Psychological Science rightly emphasizes that public schools must do a better job of identifying gifted students. It states, “the former president of CalTech observed that one truly excellent scientist is more valuable than 1,000 very good scientists.” Generalizing the statement to any field — writing, sports, investment — the author observes that the most gifted are not only very rare, but also existing within a large pool of high potential candidates, many of whom are not recognized for their potential. He points to opportunity and motivation as necessary to talent development, noting, “cases are legion in which the most unexpected individuals, confronted with a major challenge, rise brilliantly to the occasion.”

Money has not been a part of every equation where disadvantaged students have been given opportunity and motivation. In the new AP initiative, money may be a part of the motivation, but the results are clear. Whatever the motivation, it works. I heartily endorse any program that lets more students show they are smart. Who knows, one of those students may one day have the opportunity to show that he or she is the one who is so truly excellent as to be “more valuable” (we’ll worry about this definition later) than the 1,000 who are very good.

As the first state consultant for gifted in Wisconsin, here are a few of my comments based on the article in the Wisconsin State Journal, Nov. 7, 2010:

1. Federal definition – If Howard Gardner had published Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences before the federal government issued a definition, chances are we wouldn’t be saddled with categories that make little sense to most people. Leadership and creative abilities are not parallel to academic or artistic ability. For that matter, neither is intellectual ability. The reason children are most often identified in language arts and math is that it is easy – there are objective measures. Intellectual, creative and leadership potential cross these two domains, and the other six domains of smartness or intelligence, as defined by Gardner. A district can deal with the definition even though it’s not the ideal way to consider learning needs.

2. The chart that lists characteristics of the bright child versus the gifted child – this chart has been used for at least three decades to great disadvantage in the field, in my opinion. Why? Because, as written, it perpetuates the problem of labeling. The purpose of identification is not to label, but rather to provide a curricular fit for a child who needs challenge. The characteristics listed on the chart are indeed indicators of different abilities or skills, but they don’t line up in two succinct columns, and I loudly protest the use of them to label a child as gifted versus smart or bright. Whatever the degree or kind of talent as well as skill strength, each child needs an appropriately paced and level of content.

3. Superintendent Nerad stated, “Our responsibility is to take every child from where they are to their next level of learning, whether they’re kids in the middle, kids that are already meeting our proficiency standards, or kids that are experiencing achievement gaps.” The first phrase of this statement is perfect! Regarding the different types of kids listed, be aware that these are not discreet categories. For example, kids experiencing achievement gaps can be meeting proficiency standards and in the middle, when they should be soaring.

4. Not implementing the MMSD TAG Plan now – I was the DPI consultant for Gifted Programs when MMSD did not meet the requirements of Standard (t) in 1990 (it was before I left DPI at the beginning of 1991). Twenty years to establish compliance, and now, as I read the timeline, March 2011 is not a firm date to require the plan to be put into action. I don’t understand the issues in Madison. As I read it, the parents are asking for more options that will allow students to go as far and fast as they require to “take them to their next level of learning.” They are not advocating for either labeling or elimination of existing options. It sounds like Mr. Nerad sees it similarly to me. So, let’s get on with it!

Yesterday, students at West High School in Madison staged a protest against the district’s response to a complaint filed with the department of education by parents of gifted students. I understand the students’ desire to have a voice in decisions regarding their own curriculum, but I don’t understand the negative reaction to the district’s plan. As some of the parents have stated, the plan doesn’t go far enough, but it seems like a viable first step. Students district-wide would have an opportunity to take advanced or regular classes, as well as to complete work for honors credit in regular classes. If the issue for the students is the opportunity to take elective classes, the district administrator declares that current electives are not on the chopping block. Why would they be? Isn’t the district proposing to simply add more electives, i.e., Advanced Placement (AP) classes?

As one of the parents who filed the complaint pointed out, this newly announced plan addresses the need for more Advanced Placement classes at West High School, but it does not address the question of access. This might be the students’ issue also. Will freshmen and sophomores be able to take Advanced Placement classes if they have completed the prerequisite learning? This is what the parents want. Will any student who can demonstrate motivation as well as completion of prerequisites for an Advanced Placement class be allowed to register without formal identification as gifted or talented? Readiness and interest should be the factors under consideration, not identification. Is there an Optimal Match philosophy in the school plan that will guarantee all students the right to advance as fast as they are able and wanting to complete the curriculum in all areas of learning? Optimal Match is an issue of instruction – how and when the courses are available. Beyond committing to a more rigorous curriculum, the district must assure that it is well taught and available when and to whom it is appropriate. The “to whom” aspect must be clearly defined as any student, regardless of racial, ethnic, cultural, age, or economic background, for whom a curricular match is possible. This should be viewed as an opportunity to further close the achievement gap, not broaden it.